Dear Dr. Laura: Next year my high-school class will hold its 20th reunion. As you can probably guess, I consider this a problem because I was one of the out-of-it dweebs with very few friends.
I did attend my 10th reunion, but while I didn’t feel unwelcome, I didn’t enjoy myself very much either. The best part of the reunion for me was to see that most of the former cheerleaders were now fat and divorced, while I had lost weight and had married a truly wonderful man.
I know this sounds bitter and spiteful of me, and it is. My teen years were undoubtedly the worst of my life.
Should I attend this reunion, in spite of my own wishes, to provide a sort of “closure” for my teen years? Wichita, Kan.
A — Yes, I think you should go. But not out of spite or out of some false sense of closure. You should go because it is a necessary part of your ongoing growth toward maturity.
Your perspective about history is rigid and one-sided: You were a victim. Think back, even to your 10th anniversary. Were you gracious and outgoing? Were you interested in the lives, thoughts or experiences of anyone else, except to gloat in their pain and failures?
Twenty years ago you were all teenagers–immature, impulsive, superficial and hypersensitive. You cannot fairly blame all of your high-school angst on everyone else. It is adolescent thinking to define oneself only in comparison to others, either making them all above or all below you.
They were, and are, all just people–each with different stories, successes, failures and hurts–just like you. Yes, I think you should go to the reunion and try to connect and really understand the lives of the folks who were “there when you were.”
Q — If you don’t have sex with your partner until after you’re married and it turns out that the sex is really bad, wouldn’t it have been better to know this before you married? Las Vegas
A — If you pick someone up at a bar and “get it on” and it’s great, does it mean that you should marry? If you pick someone up at a bar and “get it on” and it’s terrible, does it mean that you should never marry?
If the sex is the measure of the value and purpose of a relationship, would you even see that person again after that flop? If you love someone and wish to make them happy, will you not try to understand and evolve with them sexually? Would you not be more interested in working toward a mutually satisfying sexual relationship if it were in the context of an eternal, loving commitment?
Sex is easy. Love makes sex meaningful and satisfying, much more than technique does.
Q — My mother, divorced for eight years, is living with a fellow who is younger. I am married, with two children, 8 and 10. My wife and I are very embarrassed by my mother’s lifestyle.
When I talk to her about it she says, “I’m 55 and can do whatever I want.”
I will not have her and her boyfriend stay overnight at our home. My mother threatens not to visit if I keep to that standard. My sisters tell me that I’m just causing trouble and being a pain.
I’m not going to back off, because I don’t want my children to think this behavior is right. Madison, Wis.
A — Nor do I. Values are eternal, and not dependent upon blood or circumstance. In fact, that’s exactly when they are the most tested.
You are not rejecting your mother. You are not loving her less. You are simply not participating and accepting wrong behavior.
Respect for someone does not include tolerating wrong or evil behavior from them. When you care about someone, part of that caring is to have the courage to put yourself out and challenge them when they are “off track,” and supporting them in their attempts to get back “on track.”
In addition to holding fast to the values in your own home, spend time talking to her about these ideas.
———-
Questions may be sent to Dr. Laura Schlessinger in care of the Chicago Tribune WOMANEWS section, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611. Questions of general interest will be answered often in this weekly column; unpublished letters cannot be answered individually.
